that the monthly Meeting in the first Month last there mentioned was in the next Month following in the Year 1692. see that very Year mentioned page 27. unless he can find out some Month or Months betwixt the 12th Month of the Year 1691. and the 1st Month of the following Year 1692. X. page 24. He most perversly and ignorantly doth alledge by a sort of Argument that is so silly and weak that scarce an ordinary School boy would use it that if this Act of T. L's viz. His withdrawing from the monthly Meeting adjourned where I begin it was the cause of the Separation then it could not be the Separation it self but the Separation must come after this as the Effect follows the Cause and of this Argument he is so conceited though ridiculously weak that though I answered it in the yearly Meeting to the Satisfaction of many at which time I advised him to beware of falling into the Ditch of that called Philosophy yet he brings it up again and is not ashamed to Print his ignorance and expose it not to say his folly but the Answer I gave him then I now again give him more largely that though the efficient Cause cannot be the Effect yet the formal Cause is the Effect in part as all Logicians or School men that treat on the Nature of Causes and Effects do teach and the material Cause is also another part of it and thus the Soul and Body are the formal and material Causes of a Man and yet they are the Man Wood and Stone and Fashion or Figure of the House are the material and formal Causes of the House and yet they are the House So T. L. and his Faction going away out of the Meeting and his rude and disorderly manner of doing it denying them to be a Meeting and consequently to be the Church were the material and formal Causes of that begun Separation and that evil Spirit that set him and them at work was the efficient Cause of it and the final Cause was to exalt themselves over their poor Brethren that as they ruled in the State most of them being Magistrates that went out so they might rule in the Church and exercise a Tyranical and Arbitrary Power Papist like over them which they not long after discovered by their open Persecution of Fining and Imprisoning for Conscience Sake And thus I have assigned the four general Causes of that begun Separation made by them which this unjust Man by his Sophistical wrangling would cast upon us XI He falsly alledgeth that the change of the Meeting in Philadelphia from the Bank to the Center was in Course page 30. This I prove to be false and a fiction because as the time of the Course of it was not yet come nor did come either so soon before or after so T. L's puting it to a Vote by giving a Sign whether it should be removed or not the Sign being They that stood should be for its removing they that sate for it s not removing but this not being according to the way and order of Truth nor vielded to we gave no regard to it farther then to prove by it the Meeting was not changed by Course but by Will and Arbitrary Power and 't is no wonder that they had an influence on many to joyn with them having the worldly Government in their Hands XII page 33. His Perversion of Thomas VVilsons Words that gave Evidence against me at the Yearly Meeting that I said I believed they removed the Meeting to force me to meet with them proveth that they that used that force toward me were guilty of the separation and the cause of it For can there be any greater cause of separation or breach than to force Mens Consciences as some of them thought to force me to joyn in Prayer with them whom I could not in Conscience joyn with for their unchristian Usage towards me one of them having publickly cursed me in the Mens Meeting saying VVoe be to thee from the Lord another calling me in the Meeting Babylons Brat and none of them censuring these wicked Actions and they knowing that I was not like to be forced by them to joyn with such in Prayer they knew how to find an occasion against me to disown me And how many Hundreds here in England Friends as well as others have been separated from other Professions because of their seeking to force and compel them to a way of VVorship they could not in Conscience own So their seeking to force me proves they had a design to disown me And so Thomas VVilson's saying that he juddged me out of my own mouth judgeth him and them out of their own Mouth XIII His Perversion in blaming me for having a private Family meeting my House hence casting the Separation upon me to instruct my Family and pray in my Family saying page 33. That I give no account by whose appointment or what Authority that Meeting was held so that by his Sentiment Men must not instruct their Families nor pray in their Families without Authority and Appointment of the Mens-Meeting or if they do they must let none others be present though the Act of Parliament now expir'd and repeal'd permitted Five beside the Family His Clamour about our meeting at the Barbadoes House is idle and impertinent we met not there till they had separated themselves from us and denyed the Monthly Meeting And after this who can say but we had liberty to meet where we thought fit Besides that they not only threatned to keep us out of the Bank Meeting but most rudely abused us when we met in it at our ordinary times having a Right to it as good as theirs always interrupting any of us that spoke though we never interrupted them and at last sending some by their Magistratical Authority with Saws and Axes to knock down our Gallery but they were prevented by some that knocked down both the one and the other which I had no hand in directly nor indirectly XIV p. 35. His Perversion that I affirmed a Power to alter choose change pull down and set up Meetings as I pleased and the foundation of this Forgery is by his own confession because I declar'd my Sense by way of Proposition That it were good to have but one publick Meeting on First days and the remaining part to be used in private Families Now Reader judge what ground he had from my simple Christian-Proposition to invent this Forgery XV. He grosly perverteth my Words that because I said It was good to have but one publick Meeting on First days thereby inferring that it was not good according to my sense but evil to have two publick Meetings on First days and that therfore to keep two was against my Conscience But let the Reader judge what perverse Reasoning this is Pag. 36 37. Knoweth he not a Distinction betwixt two goods and the one either equal to the other or better than the other as
our Society But this is altogether false I own no other Door but Christ and he both as sincerely believed in not with a bare literal historical Faith but a divine spiritual Faith begot in our hearts by the Spirit of Faith and as sincerely confessed the sincere living Confession flowing from a sincere living Faith in the heart XXXVIII pag. 61. His perversion That I make a bare profession verbal confession or Declaration of Principles Doctrines and Practises the Terms of Church-communion This is false I make them not the Terms at all when the profession is but barely verbal but when the Confession or Profession floweth from the living Faith of Christ and from his Life in the heart I said and still say they are secondary Terms of Church-Communion the inward life of Christ in the heart being the principle XXXIX p. 61. His perverting of my words to a wrong sense never intended by me my words being The Causless Groâ—â—â— p. 8. But that some Principles and Doctrines and points of Faith are necessary to be agreed upon c. and to be owned professed and declared by us to be as it were the Terms c. As if my sense were That men were to contrive and cut out their own Terms But how doth prejudice blind and byass him Knoweth he not that men may well agree together in one faith by the Spirit 's inward working in their hearts as well as they may agree together in one prayer by the Spirit without contriving and cutting out their own Terms I mean not by agreeing or agreed an humane political contrivance or design but a divine agreement XL. p. 60 61. His perversion first in most fraudulently putting a false gloss upon my words about the word agreed on and next deceiving and abusing his Reader as if I did put the same gloss upon R. B. his words p. 48. of his book The Anarchy Also his most disingenuous endeavouring to make the Reader believe I wrong R. Barclay in citing some words of his and that because I cite not so many of his words as he thought fit to cite after me in that place p. 48. But I cited as many as were sufficient to prove That it is R. Barclays Doctrine and Testimony that Principles and Doctrines and the Practices necessarily depending on them are as it were the Terms that have drawn us together and the Bond by which we became centered into one body and fellowship and distinguished from others yet not this so the Bond but that we have also a more inward and invisible the Life of righteousness And in my book called The Reasons and Causes of the Sep. p. 24 25. I have cited R. B. his words at great length to confirm his agreement with me in this particular which he will never be able with all his silly quibles to overthrow But when he cannot fairly dispute he goes to pervert and invent false things first he quarrels with the word agreed but I did not say R. B. used the word agreed but it must needs be his sense That whoever believes the same Doctrine by the Operation of the Spirit of God in their Hearts they must needs agree in that faith Secondly he saith R. B. doth not make a bare profession verbal confession any Terms at all and no more do I and to suppose I do is an invention of his own Thirdly he saith The Principles Doctrines and Practises themselves he calls not the Terms and Bond strictly and properly but as it were But that manner of Phrase as it were doth not hinder that they are truly in his sense the secondary Terms or Terms in part and that properly enough but they are not the only or principal but the inward Life of Righteousness as man's body may be said as it were to be the man and yet not the principle part of the man for that is the soul XLI p. 62. His gross perversion insinuating that in my book Some Reasons and Causes c. p. 16. I had cited R. B's words but it was not his words but his Doctrine that I mention in that place as to the substance of it but not as to that particular Circumstance of answering to some plain questions with yea or nay This Circumstance I did not say was in R. B's book but the substance of the Doctrine but all his proof that it is not his Doctrine is that he assures the Reader it is not but let the Reader compare my Citations at length in my Reasons and Causes of Sep. p. 24. 25. and he shall find it is his Doctrine notwithstanding T. E. his boldly affirming it is not XLII p. 58. His perversion by insinuating That all the most necessary Principles and Doctrines of our Faith both common and peculiar are published and made known by the general Consent Advice and Approbation of the most Judicious Wise and Understanding Friends now alive In answer to my proposition desiring it might be so he saith by way of insinuation Is that a new thing to be done now I reply it is a new thing yet to be done and I believe he is not able to shew me that book where it is done by general consent for it is not the consent of a few or of the Second Days Meeting at London who take too much upon them and have published and recommended books that Truth cannot stand by that I mean but the general Consent of the most Judicious Friends the which if it were done were not to be imposed but to be recommended to other Friends XLIII p. 62. His perversion as if I said That the lesser matters of plain Languages and plain Habit c. were so the Terms of Friends Communion as if every one should thereby be intituled to our Communior who speak the plain Language wear plain habit but I neither said nor thought any such thing XLIV p. 62. His perversion in owning these lesser things when sincerely performed to be fruits effects and signs of that inward and invisible Life of Righteousness but not the Terms so much as in part as if fruits effects and signs joyned with the inward life of Righteousness were not a part of these Terms which is as much as to say because the body is not the whole man therefore it is no part of a man XLV p. 64. His error and perversion in laying more weight on these lesler matters of plain language plain habit c. than on the outward profession and confession to the great Doctrines and Principles of the Christian Faith This is apparent from his words XLVI p. 64. His perversion in falsly charging me That I spurn disdainfully at the advice given me to retract the bitter Language as some call it in my books whereas I modestly promise to do it when they have told me what hard or bitter words I have given to any that are not due unto them withal desiring some to give me their good Example Is this any disdainful spurning XLVII p. 64. His
two wherein he hath said nothing to give just satisfaction for as it may be granted that in great Assemblies where all are unanimous as well as in lesser Assemblies as it happened at the adjourned Meeting in Philadelphia the Judgment may be signed by one of the Members so when the Judgment is not unanimous as it was not in that Assembly one party should not call that the Judgment of the whole which was but the Judgment of a part supposing them to be the majority it not being the way of Friends in their Assemblies to carry it by plurality of Voices and had it come to a signing with the hands of particular persons as it happened in that paper signed by 66 concerning J. S. and I. W. it is sufficiently probable divers would have refused to sign it that said little or nothing against it in the open Meeting it being sufficiently known that many are silent to things which they do not always approve To the second he taketh it barely for granted that the Yearly Meeting at Burlington that gave forth that Judgment concerning G. K. and T. L. c. was a separate Meeting which being as readily denied by me as affirmed by him leaveth the matter undetermined to some until it further appear which of the two sides might be most justly called the separate Meeting But that which casteth the Ballance is when it is duly understood that they whom he calleth the Separate Meeting stood up for Truth against the vile Errors that too many of the other side were guilty of and which the rest of them did cloak and cover and it is left to the impartial Judgment of the Readers whether it doth not appear that they of the other side were the Separatists in the worst sense after the due consideration of what is said pro and contra in reading these my late books relating to these differences and T. E. his late book in opposition and this my Reply But that the said meeting was made up of some others that seldom or never went to Friends meetings at all as he alledgeth it can easily be proved that where one such can be mentioned that made up that called by him the separate meeting or were otherwise unqualified to give Judgment in such a case three can be mentioned of the other side or rather more and much more unqualified that gave a contrary Judgment at the other meeting at that time as can be sufficiently proved by comparing persons with persons and names with names and it is evidently apparent that what they could not do with the weight of Truth and Justice they laboured to do with number of Names divers of whom were manifestly known to be of bad Fame and Reputation But it is not what Number of Names maketh a Judgment authentick and weighty but what Truth and Justice is in it THE END It was desired by John Raunce that these Lines should be herewith Printed AT this time I would not have taken notice of T. Elwood but to answer some who are troubled about his unchristian dealing by me and are desirous I should say something to T. E's Postscript as it is in his Pamphlet of three sheets against my paper of Observations c. In which Postscript T. Ellwood wordeth it after this manner Since the former part was written I hear J. Raunce hath hatched another false story against me which is saith T. E. that I did not allow my Father a Shrowd but that he was wrapt in an old Moth-eaten Blanket c. The Charge I deny and say I did not hatch that story which Thomas Ellwood chatgeth upon me But this is the truth of the business so far as I know The man that helped to lay T. Ellwood's Father into his Coffin and saw him nailed up in the Coffin that very man gave the following Relation which he spake before many persons and did affirm very confidently That Old T. Ellwood had no other Shrowd but somewhat of an Old Moth-eaten Blanket and it was so little and so short that it would scarce cover his body He had no Cap on his Head nor any Muffler for his Jaws The Shrowd was so sorry a thing that he said he would not have given 6 d. for it And surely T. Ellwood hath no cause to accuse me and do as he hath done in some of his Papers and to tell so much of his Kindness and Dealings by his deceased Father and how that he had given direction for his Interment and that he went thither to discharge the Charge of his Sickness and Funeral Whereas he would not afford his own presence to attend his Deceased Father's Body to a Burying Place belonging to Friends within one Mile where his Father dyed But Thomas Ellwood rather chose to give Twelve Pence a peice to four Poor Men to carry his Father's Corps into the Parish steeple-yard where they Laid him in such place as was commonly made use off for Vagabonds and Beggars to the shame of an Undutyful Son as it is well known c. But I having more at Large in my other Papers mentioned the Truth of things against which Thomas Ellwood may Cavil and use a multitude of Words But he hath not yet proved one thing false that I have written So I need say little now but to answer the Expectation of those whose desire it was to know whether I was the hatcher of that story which Thomas Ellwood chargeth upon me in his Postcript And I say I was not the Author of it But it was the Relation of the man who helped to lay Thomas Ellwood's Father into his Coffin as is above mentioned J. R. * 2 Cor. 6. 14 15 16 17. * See Heb. 9. 14. Heb. 10. 29. Heb. 13. 12.